Sexual Injustice

“Outstanding for collections on gay rights and the law. . . . Highly Recommended.” — CHOICE

“A valuable legal history of the period often referred to as the sexual revolution.” — Journal of Southern History

“An important, readable, and persuasive book. . . . After reading this important new study, readers will indeed think twice before celebrating a sexual revolution in the Court.” — Law and History Review

“Stein’s invaluable study . . . make[s] it required reading for anyone seeking to understand the changing relationship between law and sexuality.” — The American Historical Review

“Stein is the first scholar to examine this episode in any depth and to tell Boutilier’s tragic story following the Supreme Court ruling.” — YFile, York University’s Daily Bulletin

“Offers a sophisticated understanding of the narrow outlook of the Court on issues of sexual rights. . . . An important contribution to the history of law, sexuality, immigration, and citizenship. . . . In addition to his brilliant interpretation of these cases, Stein also presents a beautiful discussion of his approach and methodology as well as a remarkable transparency in his use of potentially difficult sources. . . . Offers a remarkable model and a useful example for all historians.” — H-Net Reviews

“Stein’s analysis [of the case of Boutilier] is thorough, nuanced, and multifaceted.” — Journal of American History

“A must read.” — Jim Downs, Huffington Post

“Marc Stein turns conventional wisdom upside down in this provocative critique of Supreme Court decisions in the era of the sexual revolution. Stein forces us to rethink what liberalism means in ways that extend far beyond issues of sexuality.” — John D'Emilio, coauthor of Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America

“This is an impressive, important, and well-researched book on the Supreme Court’s development and elaboration of the constitutional right to privacy. Marc Stein, who is a wonderful microhistorian, illuminates the underlying interpretive complexities of this period, including the ways in which the opinions of the Supreme Court are often publicly misunderstood.” — David A. J. Richards, Edwin D. Webb Professor of Law, New York University